At Cornell (Finally) A Stand for Academic Freedom and Against Wokeness

[jbg]

Finally, Cornell shows some spine at the wave of wokeness and "cancellation" of rival points of view. Should College Come With Trigger Warnings? At Cornell, It’s a ‘Hard No.’

(excerpt) Last month, a Cornell University sophomore, Claire Ting, was studying with friends when one of them became visibly upset and was unable to continue her work.For a Korean American literature class, the woman was reading “The Surrendered,” a novel by Chang-rae Lee about a Korean girl orphaned by the Korean War that includes a graphic rape scene. Ms. Ting’s friend had recently testified at a campus hearing against a student who she said sexually assaulted her, the woman said in an interview. Reading the passage so soon afterward left her feeling unmoored....

That day, she drafted a resolution urging instructors to provide warnings on the syllabus about “traumatic content” that might be discussed in class, including sexual assault, self-harm and transphobic violence.

Cornell's administration vetoed the Student resolution to require "trigger warnings" stating: "“We cannot accept this resolution as the actions it recommends would infringe on our core commitment to academic freedom and freedom of inquiry, and are at odds with the goals of a Cornell education,” Ms. Pollack wrote in a letter with the university provost, Michael I. Kotlikoff." My impression was that college students were expected to either be mature late adolescents or on their way to maturity. People who are mature or maturing need to learn to "roll with the punches" as long as those punches are verbal and not actual violence. To quote Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1926) (link):

Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, selfreliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom.5 Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution. It is therefore always open to Americans to challenge a law abridging free speech and assembly by showing that there was no emergency justifying it.

I agree heartily with Justice Brandeis. 18-22 year olds should not need to be protected from hurtful literature. Does this mean "anything goes?" Well, I suppose that courses based on literature that is pure hate, such as Hitler's Mein Kampf would have few takers. I agree that those courses should be elective, not required. I could see a pre-display of intended reading matter, not "trigger warnings."
Three years ago, Cornell was on the wrong track. Cornell's President posted and blasted the following message (link), excerpt below:

I want to make clear, both personally and on behalf of Cornell, that we will do all we can as a university to address this scourge of racism. We will address it directly in our educational programs, in our research and in our engagement and related activities, working through the ways we know best to push for a world that is equitable and kind; where people do not have to fear for their lives because of the color of their skin; and where everyone has the same opportunities to grow, thrive and enjoy their lives.

As an alumnus, Cornell 1979 and my father (Cornell Engineering 1947), I responded, in part, as follows:

I cannot agree with the self-flagellation of your letter and similar correspondence from clergy and academic leaders.....Remember, Mr. Floyd was killed by four Minneapolis police officers, not by Cornell University.

Just as Cornell did not put its knee of George Floyd's neck, Cornell is not a continuation of First Grade. I am proud that my Alma Mater is finally taking a stand. It is very much in the tradition of Cornell always being co-ed since founding, and always being open to people of color.

 

[fantome profane]

Just glad they aren’t banning books.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Finally, Cornell shows some spine at the wave of wokeness and "cancellation" of rival points of view. Should College Come With Trigger Warnings? At Cornell, It’s a ‘Hard No.’




Cornell's administration vetoed the Student resolution to require "trigger warnings" stating: "“We cannot accept this resolution as the actions it recommends would infringe on our core commitment to academic freedom and freedom of inquiry, and are at odds with the goals of a Cornell education,” Ms. Pollack wrote in a letter with the university provost, Michael I. Kotlikoff." My impression was that college students were expected to either be mature late adolescents or on their way to maturity. People who are mature or maturing need to learn to "roll with the punches" as long as those punches are verbal and not actual violence. To quote Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1926) (link):

I agree heartily with Justice Brandeis. 18-22 year olds should not need to be protected from hurtful literature. Does this mean "anything goes?" Well, I suppose that courses based on literature that is pure hate, such as Hitler's Mein Kampf would have few takers. I agree that those courses should be elective, not required. I could see a pre-display of intended reading matter, not "trigger warnings."
Three years ago, Cornell was on the wrong track. Cornell's President posted and blasted the following message (link), excerpt below:

As an alumnus, Cornell 1979 and my father (Cornell Engineering 1947), I responded, in part, as follows:

Just as Cornell did not put its knee of George Floyd's neck, Cornell is not a continuation of First Grade. I am proud that my Alma Mater is finally taking a stand. It is very much in the tradition of Cornell always being co-ed since founding, and always being open to people of color.

It's a good way of saying and sending the message to finally , "grow up".

College is definitely not for 18-22 year old immature children.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's a good way of saying and sending the message to , "grow up".

You see PTSD as a sign of immaturity? Strange take.

 

[Stevicus]

Finally, Cornell shows some spine at the wave of wokeness and "cancellation" of rival points of view. Should College Come With Trigger Warnings? At Cornell, It’s a ‘Hard No.’




Cornell's administration vetoed the Student resolution to require "trigger warnings" stating: "“We cannot accept this resolution as the actions it recommends would infringe on our core commitment to academic freedom and freedom of inquiry, and are at odds with the goals of a Cornell education,” Ms. Pollack wrote in a letter with the university provost, Michael I. Kotlikoff." My impression was that college students were expected to either be mature late adolescents or on their way to maturity. People who are mature or maturing need to learn to "roll with the punches" as long as those punches are verbal and not actual violence. To quote Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1926) (link):

I agree heartily with Justice Brandeis. 18-22 year olds should not need to be protected from hurtful literature. Does this mean "anything goes?" Well, I suppose that courses based on literature that is pure hate, such as Hitler's Mein Kampf would have few takers. I agree that those courses should be elective, not required. I could see a pre-display of intended reading matter, not "trigger warnings."
Three years ago, Cornell was on the wrong track. Cornell's President posted and blasted the following message (link), excerpt below:

As an alumnus, Cornell 1979 and my father (Cornell Engineering 1947), I responded, in part, as follows:

Just as Cornell did not put its knee of George Floyd's neck, Cornell is not a continuation of First Grade. I am proud that my Alma Mater is finally taking a stand. It is very much in the tradition of Cornell always being co-ed since founding, and always being open to people of color.

We didn't really have "trigger warnings" when I was in school. Although if something was pretty graphic or nasty, it would usually be mentioned ahead of time. And of course, they introduced movie ratings a long time ago, so those might be an early precursor to "trigger warnings."

 

[Twilight Hue]

You see PTSD as a sign of immaturity? Strange take.

Best to leave it then to future leaders who can handle things then.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Best to leave it then to future leaders who can handle things then.

Again: strange take.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Again: strange take.

No. I would just prefer to see those with level heads and a strong bearing.

Those that can't need to seek help.

 

[Heyo]

Finally, Cornell shows some spine at the wave of wokeness and "cancellation" of rival points of view. Should College Come With Trigger Warnings? At Cornell, It’s a ‘Hard No.’




Cornell's administration vetoed the Student resolution to require "trigger warnings" stating: "“We cannot accept this resolution as the actions it recommends would infringe on our core commitment to academic freedom and freedom of inquiry, and are at odds with the goals of a Cornell education,” Ms. Pollack wrote in a letter with the university provost, Michael I. Kotlikoff." My impression was that college students were expected to either be mature late adolescents or on their way to maturity. People who are mature or maturing need to learn to "roll with the punches" as long as those punches are verbal and not actual violence. To quote Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1926) (link):

I agree heartily with Justice Brandeis. 18-22 year olds should not need to be protected from hurtful literature. Does this mean "anything goes?" Well, I suppose that courses based on literature that is pure hate, such as Hitler's Mein Kampf would have few takers. I agree that those courses should be elective, not required. I could see a pre-display of intended reading matter, not "trigger warnings."
Three years ago, Cornell was on the wrong track. Cornell's President posted and blasted the following message (link), excerpt below:

As an alumnus, Cornell 1979 and my father (Cornell Engineering 1947), I responded, in part, as follows:

Just as Cornell did not put its knee of George Floyd's neck, Cornell is not a continuation of First Grade. I am proud that my Alma Mater is finally taking a stand. It is very much in the tradition of Cornell always being co-ed since founding, and always being open to people of color.

While the idea is right, the example is bad. Cornell is fighting a straw man and not addressing the request of the student. "Trigger warnings" don't infringe on academic freedom and are not comparable with cancelling or book banning.

 

[PureX]

Finally, Cornell shows some spine at the wave of wokeness and "cancellation" of rival points of view. Should College Come With Trigger Warnings? At Cornell, It’s a ‘Hard No.’




Cornell's administration vetoed the Student resolution to require "trigger warnings" stating: "“We cannot accept this resolution as the actions it recommends would infringe on our core commitment to academic freedom and freedom of inquiry, and are at odds with the goals of a Cornell education,” Ms. Pollack wrote in a letter with the university provost, Michael I. Kotlikoff." My impression was that college students were expected to either be mature late adolescents or on their way to maturity. People who are mature or maturing need to learn to "roll with the punches" as long as those punches are verbal and not actual violence. To quote Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1926) (link):

I agree heartily with Justice Brandeis. 18-22 year olds should not need to be protected from hurtful literature. Does this mean "anything goes?" Well, I suppose that courses based on literature that is pure hate, such as Hitler's Mein Kampf would have few takers. I agree that those courses should be elective, not required. I could see a pre-display of intended reading matter, not "trigger warnings."
Three years ago, Cornell was on the wrong track. Cornell's President posted and blasted the following message (link), excerpt below:

As an alumnus, Cornell 1979 and my father (Cornell Engineering 1947), I responded, in part, as follows:

Just as Cornell did not put its knee of George Floyd's neck, Cornell is not a continuation of First Grade. I am proud that my Alma Mater is finally taking a stand. It is very much in the tradition of Cornell always being co-ed since founding, and always being open to people of color.

What does any of this have to do with "wokeness" or "cancel culture"? The college decided it was not their place to pander to one student's emotional weaknesses by labeling the content of educational materials for all students. A perfectly reasonable choice. Especially when the student in question could have and should have availed herself of the psychological help the college makes available to all students for just this kind of situation.

 

[PureX]

While the idea is right, the example is bad. Cornell is fighting a straw man and not addressing the request of the student. "Trigger warnings" don't infringe on academic freedom and are not comparable with cancelling or book banning.

The "trigger" content was never the problem, and should not be the issue. Which is why the college refused to treat it as if it were. (At considerable expense, by the way.) The issue was the student's emotional reaction, which called for a very different kind of remediation. Something already available to her in the form of free psychological counceling.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The "trigger" content was never the problem, and should not be the issue. Which is why the college refused to treat it as if it were. (At considerable expense, by the way.) The issue was the student's emotional reaction, which called for a very different kind of remediation. Something already available to her in the form of free psychological counceling.

The woman appeared to have been recently sexually assaulted. Psychological counseling takes time. I don't think it's unreasonable to add a quick "This material contains graphic descriptions of rape" to a syllabus.

 

[Estro Felino]

I agree with @PureX
This event has nothing to do with wokeness.

 

[PureX]

The woman appeared to have been recently sexually assaulted. Psychological counseling takes time. I don't think it's unreasonable to add a quick "This material contains graphic descriptions of rape" to a syllabus.

It's a silly and unreasonable request that does not address the actual problem. A college has many thousands of books. Who is going to go through them all and decide which content might "trigger" someone and therefor needs a warning? Or, if the teacher assigning the books has to do it, how does he or she know which students need warning about which content?

If the victim was not ready for reading such content, she has the responibility to safeguard herself. It's not the whole worlds job to cater to one person's emotional trauma. Or in this case, the whole college's job.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

It's a silly and unreasonable request that does not address the actual problem. A college has many thousands of books. Who is going to go through them all and decide which content might "trigger" someone and therefor needs a warning? Or, if the teacher assigning the books has to do it, how does he or she know which students need warning about which content?

If the victim was not ready for reading such content, she has the responibility to safeguard herself. It's not the whole worlds job to cater to one person's emotional trauma. Or in this case, the whole college's job.

When a professor creates a syllabus it is expected that they understand the material they are requiring the students to access for credit. Professors can't be responsible for everything that may trigger trauma reactions, but it seems reasonable to add a quick warning for material you are requiring a diverse set of students to read when it contains graphic violence one normally isn't exposed to. This isn't forcing students not to read it. Most probably will.

 

[PureX]

When a professor creates a syllabus it is expected that they understand the material they are requiring the students to access for credit. Professors can't be responsible for everything that may trigger trauma reactions, but it seems reasonable to add a quick warning for material you are requiring a diverse set of students to read when it contains graphic violence one normally isn't exposed to. This isn't forcing students not to read it. Most probably will.

Part of the professor's job is to expose students to things exactly like graphic violence, sexism, racism, and man's inhumanity to man. It's college, not primary school. College is where young adults are exposed to these kinds of realities and learn how to grapple with them. Even if there were warning labels, so what? The material is still part of the curriculum. And is still required reading for a reason. If there is some exceptional circumstance that should excuse a student from reading that material, it's their responsibility to negotiate with the professor for some other possible solution. It is not the college's job to anticipate such exceptional circumstances and avoid them, especially at the expense of their fundamental purpose.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Part of the professor's job is to expose students to things exactly like graphic violence, sexism, racism, and man's inhumanity to man. It's college, not primary school. College is where young adults are exposed to learn about these kinds of realities and grapple with them. Even if there were warning labels, so what? The material is still part of the curriculum. And is still required reading for a reason. If there is some exceptional circumstance that should excuse a student from reading that material, it's their responsibility to negotiate with the professor for some other possible solution. It is not the college's job to anticipate such exceptional circumstances and avoid them, especially at the expense of their fundamental purpose.

Yes, I agree. What better way to alert a student to discuss the material with their professor than a note about it in the syllabus?

Also, a student skipping over a passage in a book isn't likely to ruin their grade for the class. If the professor is requiring the student to read that single passage or fail, that professor needs their own psychological service.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Part of the professor's job is to expose students to things exactly like graphic violence, sexism, racism, and man's inhumanity to man. It's college, not primary school. College is where young adults are exposed to these kinds of realities and learn how to grapple with them.

... to challenge biases. Not to trigger mental health crises unnecessarily.

Even if there were warning labels, so what? The material is still part of the curriculum. And is still required reading for a reason.

At the very least, it would let the student prepare mentally. It might also inform the student's decision about whether or not to take that course.

If there is some exceptional circumstance that should excuse a student from reading that material, it's their responsibility to negotiate with the professor for some other possible solution. It is not the college's job to anticipate such exceptional circumstances and avoid them, especially at the expense of their fundamental purpose.

It is the school's responsibility, actually. PTSD is a disability. Institutions are required by law to make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities.

Would you be saying this about wheelchair users?

"You can't expecy the school to have electric door openers! They're trying to prepare students for the realities of the real world! If there's some exceptional reason why a student can't open a door on their own, it's their responsibility to negotiate for a solution."

 

[Guitar's Cry]

... to challenge biases. Not to trigger mental health crises unnecessarily.

It also seems like those that would avoid the material have already been directly exposed to the content through real experiences of violence.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

... to challenge biases. Not to trigger mental health crises unnecessarily.


At the very least, it would let the student prepare mentally. It might also inform the student's decision about whether or not to take that course.


It is the school's responsibility, actually. PTSD is a disability. Institutions are required by law to make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities.

Would you be saying this about wheelchair users?

"You can't expecy the school to have electric door openers! They're trying to prepare students for the realities of the real world! If there's some exceptional reason why a student can't open a door on their own, it's their responsibility to negotiate for a solution."

Meh...I don't think you can compare trigger warnings to wheelchair ramps. Not fairly, anyway.

Proceed with caution: the trouble with trigger warnings

Trigger warnings are increasingly ubiquitous but recent research finds they are ineffective, and possibly harmful, if used in a tokenistic way.

theconversation.com